I’ve an addictive personality. I come by this honestly, as both my parents were also afflicted. It killed them both.
Before you get all worried, I’m not addicted to tobacco, as my Mother was. My Father liked his cigars and his alcohol.
And his excess food.
The S.A.D. (Standard American Diet) – too many refined carbs, too much protein, too much white sugar.
I, too, like food. Sometimes to excess. Including sugar.
And, I’ve been diabetic since 2002.
The Good Rev. Paul posted recently regarding Krispy Kreme Donuts. Now, I
like LOVES me a good doughnut! The problem is unlike normal folks, stopping at one, for me, can be difficult. And here in college/commuter town USA, we are surrounded by doughnut shops! The ubiquitous Dunkin’, Krispy Kreme, and many local emporia.
SO…I must make the choice. And sometimes I partake.
Fortunately, it’s not too often, and not a dozen-at-a-time.
I’m reminded of a cartoon, long ago in Playboy. (Buck Brown? Gahan Wilson? Which I was unable to locate it on the ‘Net)
An older couple in their rocking chairs, on their front porch. Both are quite obese. And they are chowing-down. Between them is a large bucket of fried chicken. Just visible, to the side of the house, is a square, striped building(!?)
And one says to the other, “Sometimes, I wish they hadn’t moved in next door…”
Today, give me strength.
Thankfully, the nearest are at least a mile away, and I’ve no funds. And, it’s ‘cold’ out (40° – sorry, Rev. Paul!)
Okay, just to be clear…
(and this is NOT a bleg!)
I’M NOT POOR
But, it IS a matter of relativity.
I know folks who could go out for expensive steak dinners every night of the week! And doing so would have no serious consequence for them (except perhaps gout!).
I know others who generally ‘get by’ on what they bring in. Going overboard for Christmas perhaps, and playing games with five credit cards in an effort to stay solvent. Maybe playing a little too much at the Indian casinos(?) But they are treading water.
A few of my friends have good jobs, and have for many years. And often help friends and relatives in need. Sometimes even including yours truly.
But, I remain on SSDI (Social Security Disability Income), coupled with a small stipend (17% of the total) from private health insurance I was lucky enough to purchase when I was employed. And even though I was placed on the ‘disabled list’ due to one affliction, I am blessed with additional ones.
This is of no consequence to the bean counters.
I recently applied for supplemental Medicare insurance (I got Medicare with my SSDI). I’ve been on SSDI for five years, but have never applied for a supplement before. Between the complexities of the system and fear a supplement would cost more, I never did it before. Guess what? I will be penalized financially for NOT having applied in the previous five years!
Fortunately, I found an independent insurance agent who researched my options and helped me walk through the Gordian knot of rules and regulations. Sadly, he asked me to apply for assistance in paying for my prescriptions from Social Security, and they declined.
See? I’m NOT poor. The government says so!
Currently, I pay full price for my prescriptions, averaging $85/month. And without a secondary insurance, Medicare is 80/20. Meaning if I go in to see my primary care physician, a specialist or have a ‘procedure’ done (like the recent endoscopy), I owe 20%.
Which I do not have.
To be clear, I get to go out to eat (with my roommate), pay for TV satellite, rent and groceries. (She pays for the other stuff, like mortgage, electric and Wifi.) I suppose if we didn’t ever go out (usually fast food, pizza (etc.), never steak), and we didn’t have satellite TV, Internet, etc., I could afford the 20%.
We are NOT Syrian refugees, to be sure.
My 17-year old Oldsmobile clunker is other evidence. She still runs, albeit poorly. And I cannot afford regular maintenance.
Theoretically, my new plan will cover 80% of my prescriptions! And has some vision and dental coverage, as well. (Of course, the government is tacking on $20-30/month because I had to audacity to not have applied sooner!)
I’ve seen on the Internet, one cannot be fat and poor. I was once 350 pounds. I am now 233 – 50 or so more to go…
Everything is relative.
The Art of Manliness blog is my go-to place for such esoteric knowledge as how to dress, conceal a weapon or wrestle. IOW, manly things! 🙂
Being mostly disabled since age 12, physical pursuits were largely left behind to childhood. And now damn near elderly and infirmed, the idea of participating in COMBAT seems laughable.
But, in today’s political climate, with conflicts developing between States and the federal government, who knows?
At least I know how to shoot!
For those of you (like me) who never made it to the U.S. military, AoM offers a taste of what is required for combat readiness.
If social order ever breaks down where this is necessary, I suspect I will be holed-up somewhere making tin foil hats and praying. Leaving only to forage for stores I cannot make – like fresh water and TP!
For the rest of you…
(Originally, I was going to say The National Enquirer, but that periodical appears to have achieved more gravitas of late than The New York Times and Time magazine, combined!) 🙂
Let’s see. In the past week…
- Hillary WILL DEFINITELY be indicted
- Hillary WILL DEFINITELY NOT be indicted
- Global Warming is real (as determined by bribed/blackmailed scientists)
- Oklahoma Fracking is causing the increased earthquake activity there (as determined by the same ‘team’ of scientists)
- Assange states Wikileaks will release astounding information damning to Hillary in the next couple of days. – from Saturday last (We’re still waiting, Julian!)
- GMO foods are killing us.
- Vaccinating is bad
- Vaccinating is good.
- More BEE species are facing extinction (due to Monsanto pesticide and GMO development)
- Big corporations (like Monsanto) are bad. Just because they are big, and make money.
- Hillary will win (because the fix is in, ballot box stuffing, voter fraud, Soros, Illuminati, etc.)
- Hillary will win (based on some Quija board predictions in the past – see Groundhog Day)
- Trump will win (see above Hillary win stuff for reasons)
One thing I have noticed. Many of the same scientists are aligned with the same forces who believe in global warming, are anti-GMO and ANTI-vaxxer types, and have the ‘humans are bad for the Earth’ (and obtaining oil is bad, and think we need a global government to solve everything) way of thinking.
IF YOU HAVE NOT VOTED, PLEASE DO SO. IF NOT, YOU WILL HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN.
Thank GOD today is Election Day, and it will all be over soon!
One way or another…
God save The United States of America, from herself!
The Silicon Graybeard (not a wild-eyed conspiracy guy!) brings us (in part)
Translates as “Let justice be done, though the world perish”. Apparently it’s not really a phrase from the Roman Empire but from a book in 1563. Wikipedia says:
This sentence was the motto of Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor, probably originating from Johannes Jacobus Manlius’s book Loci Communes (1563). It characterizes an attitude, which wants to provide justice at any price. Its first documented use in English literature was about half a century later.
Hat Tip to The Arts Mechanical for this information, in a piece called Nightmare Fuel, and it really is reading that’s not for the squeamish. He, in turn, links to a number of sources that are reporting on the truly disgusting things going on in Clinton Foundation’s universe. First a link to True Pundit:
BREAKING BOMBSHELL: NYPD Blows Whistle on New Hillary Emails: Money Laundering, Sex Crimes with Children, Child Exploitation, Pay to Play, Perjury
It’s. Not. Just. Bill. It’s all of them. From Reddit’s The_Donald forum :
BREAKING: I believe I have connected a convicted child abductor who was caught stealing children in Haiti with the Clintons
But wait! There’s more! (Sickeningly)
I truly believe the Clintons and their entourage to be evil. Morally bankrupt.
Even if none of the above allegations (many courtesy of Wikileaks) are based in fact.
Humans want to believe the worst about persons whom they already despise. It makes it easier to put them in the why would I want to elect THEM column.
Not forgetting about Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, Hillary’s gun control plans, the illegal sale of plutonium to Russia, arming ISIS, the countless mysterious deaths and intimidations, Bill’s serial rapes…
(I could go on – but I have to go take some Pepto now.)
This does NOT mean I am actively supporting the Republican candidate!
He may be a pig and has used inappropriate language, and at best is a populist (see Huey Long
Libertarians? Two governors with scant international experience? One of who is a rebranded, gun-controlling Democrat?! And the Presidential candidate supports global-warming taxes?!
(I’m not even mentioning the Greens or the Commies… I know, I’m being redundant)
So VOTE. Vote not with your heart, but with your brain.
THE REPUBLIC’S SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.
Peter (Bayou Renaissance Man)
posited thusly (in part)…
Donna Laframboise asks, “How many scientific papers just aren’t true? Enough that basing government policy on ‘peer-reviewed studies’ isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.”
We’re continually assured that government policies are grounded in evidence, whether it’s an anti-bullying programme in Finland, an alcohol awareness initiative in Texas or climate change responses around the globe. Science itself, we’re told, is guiding our footsteps.
There’s just one problem: science is in deep trouble. Last year, Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, referred to fears that ‘much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue’ and that ‘science has taken a turn toward darkness.’
It’s a worrying thought. Government policies can’t be considered evidence-based if the evidence on which they depend hasn’t been independently verified, yet the vast majority of academic research is never put to this test. Instead, something called peer review takes place. When a research paper is submitted, journals invite a couple of people to evaluate it. Known as referees, these individuals recommend that the paper be published, modified, or rejected.
If it’s true that one gets what one pays for, let me point out that referees typically work for no payment. They lack both the time and the resources to perform anything other than a cursory overview. Nothing like an audit occurs. No one examines the raw data for accuracy or the computer code for errors. Peer review doesn’t guarantee that proper statistical analyses were employed, or that lab equipment was used properly. The peer review process itself is full of serious flaws, yet is treated as if it’s the handmaiden of objective truth.
And it shows. Referees at the most prestigious of journals have given the green light to research that was later found to be wholly fraudulent. Conversely, they’ve scoffed at work that went on to win Nobel prizes. Richard Smith, a former editor of the British Medical Journal, describes peer review as a roulette wheel, a lottery and a black box. He points out that an extensive body of research finds scant evidence that this vetting process accomplishes much at all. On the other hand, a mountain of scholarship has identified profound deficiencies.
. . .
Politicians and journalists have long found it convenient to regard peer-reviewed research as de facto sound science. Saying ‘Look at the studies!’ is a convenient way of avoiding argument … We’ve long been assured that reports produced by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are authoritative because they rely entirely on peer-reviewed scientific literature. A 2010 InterAcademy Council investigation found this claim to be false, but that’s another story. Even if all IPCC source material did meet this threshold, the fact that one academic journal — and there are 25,000 of them — conducted an unspecified and unregulated peer review ritual is no warranty that a paper isn’t total nonsense.
If half of scientific literature ‘may simply be untrue’, then might it be that some of the climate research cited by the IPCC is also untrue? Even raising this question is often seen as being anti-scientific. But science is never settled. The history of scientific progress is the history of one set of assumptions being disproven, and another taking its place.
There’s more at the link. Ms. Laframboise’s full report may be read here (the link is to an Adobe Acrobat document in .PDF format).
This is precisely why I profoundly distrust any politician who tries to tell us that ‘the science is settled’. All too often, it’s far from settled. It may even be actively and deliberately fraudulent, producing results tailor-made to satisfy the objectives of those who’ve funded the research. Too many ‘researchers’ begin with a goal in mind, their conclusions already identified, and then seek evidence that will substantiate what they want to prove. Anything to the contrary is ignored or discarded, or flagrantly manipulated to achieve the desired result (as in this example, to cite just one – there are many more).
That’s not research at all. It’s pseudo-scientific sleight of hand. It’s a shell game.
I used to believe in SCIENCE. After all, having been taught The Scientific Method, along with the histories of Newton, Curie, Tesla, Edison, Einstein and others, I believed hard work, documentation, reproducing results and guts did it.
The idea that scientists were bending or fabricating their results toward a financial end didn’t even cross my mind. (think Galileo!)
I used to believe in GOVERNMENT. The blueprint the Founding Fathers left us was damn near perfect. Persons who sought government service would swear to uphold the principles espoused in The Constitution.
But, there was an assumption those who chose public service would be MORAL and ETHICAL!
The fact such persons would commit perjury by swearing falsely never even crossed my radar.
The scales have indeed dropped from my eyes.
And scientists and politicians will have to reach a high bar to gain my trust ever again.
Now, I’m relegated to a bunker (in an unknown location) and tin-foil hat (at least philosophically).
If you don’t know the access password, watch out!
Courtesy of Jeffery @ The Feral Irishman
hoplophobia (n.) an irrational fear of weapons (or this from Col. Jeff Cooper) instrumentalities.
The Art of Manliness (a blog to which I sometimes refer) not only addresses etiquette, style and proper behavior, but also delves into ‘manly’ things such as camping, hunting, shooting, unarmed combat and other esoterica. (Of course, many of these subjects may be of interest to women, as well!)🙂
A recent guest post was entitled as above. I’m posting it below, in it’s entirety, not just to entertain and inform, but to show those who do carry behaviors and appearances which may bring to them unwarranted attention.
By A Manly Guest Contributor on Oct 21, 2016 02:10 pm
The following is an excerpt from 100 Deadly Skills: Survival Edition — . A follow-up to Clint’s first bestseller — 100 Deadly Skills: The SEAL Operative’s Guide to Eluding Pursuers, Evading Capture, and Surviving Any Dangerous Situation — this new survival edition offers primers on any survival situation imaginable, from wilderness scenarios, to terrorism and kidnappings, to natural disasters.
CONOP: Concept of Operations; COA: Course of Action; BLUF: Bottom Line Up Front
Individuals who carry a handgun professionally are well attuned to the range of mannerisms that can indicate the presence of a concealed weapon within their vicinity. Civilians, too, can learn to familiarize themselves with these signs and signals. When combined with suspicious behavior, the suspected presence of a concealed weapon should put bystanders on high alert.
Body Language: People carrying handguns tend to subconsciously telegraph the location of the weapon via their body language. They may reflexively palpate the gun to make sure the weapon is still safely in its holster, subtly re-position the weapon prior to sitting or standing, or shift their weight away from nearby bystanders to avoid accidental contact with or theft of the weapon.
Asymmetry: Another telltale sign is asymmetry in clothing. Guns are heavy and bulky, and thus will betray signs of their presence to anyone who’s paying attention. An outside-the-waistband holster may cause a visible midline bulge, while an ankle holster may cause a bulge or tightening of the fabric at the lower leg. A gun held in a jacket pocket will weight down one side of the jacket unevenly.
Environment: Hot or inclement weather can make concealed weapons easier to spot. Rain, wind, or sweat can reveal the outline of a gun, which will generally be much easier to hide under multiple layers of cold-weather clothing.
Negligence: Weapons are also frequently exposed due to temporary negligence, flashed or inadvertently dropped as a gunman reaches for his wallet. Dropped weapons are an all-too-common scenario at public urinals, where inexperienced perpetrators may thoughtlessly unzip their pants — thereby releasing the tension that was holding up the holster.
The post How to Spot a Concealed Handgun appeared first on The Art of Manliness.
The Legal Brief has continued to build upon its successful launch into a fantastic no-nonsense resource for the gun community. Attorney Adam Kraut, an associate at the Firearms Industry Consulting Group and Prince Law Offices, P.C. takes the years required to earn his J.D. and boils critical legal topics relevant to the gun world into practical snippets.
Unfortunately, I am late to publishing one of his latest Briefs, a review of the legal basis of modifying one’s firearm. Mr. Kraut, Esq. breaks down the due process that one will go through post defensive encounter and basically so long as one used their weapon in legal self-defense, one is free to modify their weapon as they see fit.
That said, if one is charged there is the potential that one’s modifications could be used to show the intent of the shooter, but its nearly unheard of (Adam states he’s never heard of one, which as a firearms attorney is a significant statement).
The key is, as always, the totality of the circumstances is the key. A modified firearm, assuming the modification does not cause a negligent discharge, is only a minor issue, if its an issue at all.
My take? Modify away on functional bits such as triggers and non-functional aesthetic options such as colors. However, stay away from items that could be construed to show intent such as a “Smile, Wait for Flash” on the crown of a barrel, etc.
Of course, there is the additional caveat regarding the brand, style, and type of ammunition. Your attorney’s defense team may need a firearms legal expert (like Massad Ayoob) to explain to the folks who were unable to avoid jury duty why you were carrying ‘cop-killer bullets’, or Black Talons or some other ‘evil sounding’ named ammunition. And why the extra rounds? (magazine(s), speedloader(s))? Were you planning to ‘fill ’em full o’lead’?
And, at least some of this depends on geography. Is your prosecutor in gun-hating New York or California, of gun-friendly (generally) Arizona?
Also, do you want your special, custom, smith-worked-on machine to be held in a dusty evidence room until after the trial? Some folks shoot their custom guns for fun, but carry stock guns they won’t miss if they are stored away in a gov’t evidence room (from which evidence has been known to have been played with, tampered with, and/or disappear?)
Many things to consider when you carry. And what you carry?
from TFB (in part)
First of all, my thoughts and prayers go out to the survivors and family members of the police officers murdered yesterday. The female officer who was killed had just returned from maternity leave. She had a four-month old child. – Guffaw
Whenever I travel somewhere, I have a tendency to notice armed police/security. Especially when they are carrying rifles. Just one week after the Chelsea bombing in NYC, my wife and I took our 4 month old to visit NYC. It was a bit of a risk since I could not legally carry in NYC, but then CCW won’t do much against an IED like what was used last week.. Anyway I noticed an increase in police activity. A lot more police officers on patrol. When I took this picture, I saw people coming up to these officers and thanking them for their service.
However these other officers stood out like sore thumbs in Time Square. They are all wearing Ops-Core helmets and what look like plate carriers. I do like that they have modernized and are using hearing protection which also doubles as communication head sets to their radios. The rifles are sporting what looks like Aimpoint Pros with rear MBUS. The front sight is a folding gasblock front sight and the railed handguards have Inforce WMLs.
I remember posting about civilian police being deployed on a regular basis in teams with selective-fire weaponry some time ago. Beginning in NYC.
And I was told this is already occurring in other metropolitan areas.
I remember active discussions in my Police Science classes (in the mid-70’s) regarding civil liberties versus police presence. And the general consensus was we, as a society, preferred NOT to have cops on every corner! Having them in teams with rifles was not even on the radar, then!
YES, we need policing. How we go about it is the question.
And how we preserve, protect and defend The Constitution (including The Bill of Rights, of course) is another question.
The fact that we even have to ask these questions in the wake of the BLM violence and the cop killings in California (on a domestic violence call) further makes the point.
How armed do we want the police to be versus the legally-armed citizenry?